That’s the mental state of many, on both the left and right, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court siding with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

From Hollywood’s Seth MacFarlane — brilliant in "Tinseltown" but clueless regarding politics and the law — saying the decision is the same as a restaurant not seating blacks, to the left claiming the ruling will sanction discrimination against gays, to the right championing it as a "religious freedom" victory, they are all wrong.

The icing on the cake is that, because the court wimped out by narrowly ruling on the merits of only this particular case (basically that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was mean to the baker), the issue will be front-and-center again in the near future.

Let’s get the major point straight. This issue has nothing to do with religion or gays.

It has everything to do with freedom and personal choice. Outside of advocacy groups on both sides throwing red meat to their bases, why this is so hard to understand remains a mystery.

A baker’s refusal to bake a cake for a gay couple may stem from his religious beliefs, but his legal protection isn’t a "religious freedom" law. Instead, it is a right guaranteeing all Americans the freedom to make their own decisions. And they are decisions — right or wrong, moral or immoral — according to what people, not a paternalistic government, think is best.

Americans do not always make the right decisions, but more often than not, they choose correctly. If choosing between history’s most benevolent people, who have shown the most remarkable tendency to rectify their mistakes, and a bumbling government on a quixotic social engineering quest, we should be casting our lots on the side of the citizens.

We the people have earned the benefit of that doubt.

When you strip away the inflammatory rhetoric, such individual freedom laws are the opposite of bigotry and have an important place in America.

Examples abound:

If a Ku Klux Klansman walks into a black-owned bakery and orders a cake emblazoned with "KKK," should the owner be forced to make that cake?

A Muslim-owned baker is requested to create a cake with offensive depictions of Mohammad. Must the owner comply?

Should an American baker incur fines and imprisonment for refusing to bake a cake with "Go ISIS!" and "We love al-Qaeda!"?

An anti-gun vegan is requested to make a cake with a hunter shooting a baby seal. Should she be mandated to do so?

A woman brings her fur coat to a dry cleaner owned by a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) supporter. What then?

And yes, should a gay bakery owner be forced to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple if he feels offended by their marriage?

If America is truly free, the answer to all is a resounding "No." Period.

Let’s look at this issue in detail:

Gays claim that they will be the group most adversely affected by the Supreme Court ruling. That may well be true. However, it's important to remember that sexual preference (in other words, how a person engages in sex), unlike race, creed, color and gender, is not a protected class under the federal Civil Rights Act (got that, Seth MacFarlane? That’s why it’s totally non-analagous). As much as some in that community believe they are entitled to protected status, current law says differently. And that applies to heterosexuals, too, who also aren’t covered under the Civil Rights Act.

And should sexual orientation become a protected class, there will be repercussions against the gay community. For example, a company that now employs only gay designers would be forced by law to also hire heterosexuals, even if they were not deemed as creative or talented as their gay counterparts. How is that fair?

The problem arises when states without individual freedom laws wreak havoc on people and businesses in the name of "equality" and "tolerance," when in fact, they are neither.

In Colorado, the government forced the baker to change his business rules, send his employees to anti-discrimination classes, and file quarterly reports showing that he had not turned gay people away. (He offered to make them a cake, albeit one not pertaining to gay marriage).

That "re-education camp" mentality makes criminals of law-abiding citizens, and creates heightened animosity toward certain groups that wasn’t there before the government intervened.

What’s next in states without individual freedom laws? Seeing the Knights of Columbus hauled away in handcuffs for refusing to rent their hall for a gay couple’s wedding reception?

And where do we draw the line with what is discriminatory? What about Ladies’ Night at bars where women drink for free? Seniors who eat at discounted prices? Single-sex high schools and colleges? Black fraternities? Dating websites catering exclusively to Christians, Jews, or other ethnicities? To be consistent, shouldn’t all be mandated to become all-inclusive?

Of course not. It’s time to stop getting offended at the drop of a hat. Not everything will be to our liking, and the sooner we realize that, the better.

This should be a live-and-let-live issue. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, then patronize his competitor. Likewise, find an accommodating banquet facility, and attend a church or synagogue where you feel welcome.

Let’s get over the self-pity and the "everyone-owes-us-everything" mentality, and start acting like grown-ups, rather than suing every time we get "offended."

To be clear, just because something may be wrong, doesn’t mean it is, or should be, illegal.

We cannot legislate tolerance, nor should we be criminalizing resistance to things some may find offensive. For the most part, Americans have accepted gay marriage on its merits, with the grace and dignity that comes with being some of the most progressive (small "p") people in history. Tolerance on all sides makes America go ‘round.

Ultimately, the free market can and should decide this issue. With all the publicity surrounding these laws, one of three things will occur to businesses that exclude customers: 1. They will stay in business because enough people either don’t care about their stance, or agree with them; 2. they will go out of business because of negative publicity, boycotts, and protests; or 3. they will change their policy — a choice made by owners, not government — to be more inclusive.

And here's the best part. If there aren’t enough businesses to cater to those who are excluded, it won’t be long before some spring up, because that’s how the market works. A need becomes a business opportunity, and both sides come out ahead. No harm, no foul.

Let’s be honest. It’s great to have principles, but in reality, most business owners likely will keep them private, leaving politics out of the workplace. They are in business to make money, and controversy is rarely good for the bottom line. So, given that relatively few business owners will turn people away, why is this issue garnering such headlines?

It is important to remember that these points apply only to the private sector. No government, at any level, should be discriminating (or reverse-discriminating) against anyone, for any reason. Government’s purpose is to serve the people in a fair, unbiased way, and not be engaged in politically-driven social engineering.

As with all issues, common sense goes a long way. America is big enough, and tolerant enough, to accommodate everyone. So let’s drop the divisive rhetoric, and respect beliefs of those on both sides. With the world’s most powerful system (the free market) on our side, we can have our cake and eat it, too.